Dear Dan,
Far from a frustration, I feel that it's somewhat of a moral obligation on
my part to describe, as best memory permits, the "professional" issues caused by
CL-S within the Parisian University milieu of 1960-78. Yet all of it
now seems rather silly and, quite frankly, I have not given these debates
much thought for the last forty years or so. Your missive in this particular has
thereby served as the cup of tea and Madeleine, so to speak.
In essence, it was felt that CL-S's intellectual behavior set back for
twenty years the serious pursuit of ethnologie in France. This
was not atypical if one notes the effect that another icon, de Broglie had upon
Quantum Physics. 1968 was, in part about this institutional sclerosis.
But finally, Aspect prevailed and vindicated Bell (who de Broglie was too
old to understand!), and Jean Malaurie lived happily ever after in Eskimoland.
Happy endings all.
So perhaps I might more diplomatically raise the general point: how
does anyone assess knowledge that's rejected by the subjects' peer group?
Furthermore: how amusing is it to a younger generation of scholars the useless
prevarications of an older generation? is there a sociohistory of knowledge
hidden somewhere in this narrative?
Yet hypocrite lecteur that I am, would I have thought
anthropology more interesting I would have stayed with it far long than my last
post-doc romp to India in 1980. Because of epistemological issues that we've
referred to but are yet to explore I, personally, feel that art and philosophy
are by far the more meaningful pursuits. Deleuze is simply more interesting than
either CL-S or Harris (no relation).
Finally, I should confess that I--like anyone else who's not a
self-proclaimed Marxo-paranoid--immensely enjoy films whose cognitive
underpinnings are totally, absurdly false. Bertolucci is the first who
comes to mind with his Marxist/Freudian/Buddhic stages, but perhaps the most
egregious is Kieslowski himself.
Bill Harris
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 6:58 PM
Subject: rhythm and flow
Dear Bill,
I can well imagine being irked at the ascendancy
given L-S if you feel he's warped the playing field. There certainly are
such figures that I feel irked at for having, to my view, warped my discipline
and crowded other ideas into the background. But for all that, since I'm
in no way an anthropologist and have long viewed the idea of "empirically
verifiable demonstration of effects" a touch silly in the social "sciences",
I'm simply looking for new ways of looking at things that can yield yet newer
ways of looking at things. Whether they hold up to the scrutinies of
empirical verification is in my world, you are correct, sort of beside the
point.
Also, I apologize for my tone, and realize that this view of the
life of the mind as a combat is something I indulge in from time to time, but
ultimately feel is also a distortion. The idea of winners and losers is
notoriously unreliable from a longer historical perspective in the arts, and
probably to a lesser degree in other disciplines. But then the idea of
"disciplines" as applied to the arts is also a little silly.
Also, watching the "game" from the sidelines allows one to take
occasional potshots at the players. And I don't expect to be forgiven for
that.
Nonetheless, the "idea" of structuralism when exported created
many many fascinating works of cinema in the
seventies.
dan
**************
Get trade secrets for
amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL
Food.
(http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?&NCID=aolfod00030000000002)
* * Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon. After hitting 'reply' please
always delete the text of the message you are replying to. To leave, send the
message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask] Or visit:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html For help email:
[log in to unmask], not the salon. * Film-Philosophy online:
http://www.film-philosophy.com Contact: [log in to unmask] **
*
*
Film-Philosophy Email Discussion Salon.
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: 
